Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” �यायपीठ पुणे म� । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE �ी डी. क�णाकरा राव, लेखा सद�य एवं �ी िवकास अव�थी, �याियक सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.927/PUN/2017 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2012-13 ITO, Ward-9(3), .......अपीलाथ� / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/s. Primit Technologies, Anjali Niketan, Viveknagar, Akurdi, Pune-411035. ……��यथ� / Respondent PAN : AAIFP9086F Revenue by : Shri N. Ashok Babu Assessee by : None सुनवाई क� तारीख / Date of Hearing : 10.07.2019 घोषणा क� तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 आदेश / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-6, Pune dated 27.12.2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The solitary issue raised in the present appeal relates to the “taxability of the sale proceeds of land and building” either under the head of ‘capital gains’ or under the head ‘business income’. There is none to represent the assessee before us despite the 3. service of notice by the ITAT. Considering the covered nature of the issue as well as the similarity of the facts and the similar issue which was the
2 ITA No.927/PUN/2017
subject-matter of litigation for the assessment year 2010-11, we are of the opinion, the matter is to be heard with the assistance of ld. DR for the Revenue. The Revenue accepted the decision of the CIT(A) in that year. 4. From the material available on record, it is seen that, as per para 2, 2.1, 3 to 5.1 of the order of CIT(A), such income was held as taxable under the head ‘capital gains’ and not to be treated as ‘business income’ for the assessment year 2010-11. Para 5 and 5.1 of the order of the CIT(A) constitutes an operational para. For the sake of completeness, the said paras are extracted hereunder :- “5. This assessment order is an outcome of the findings made by the AO in the assessment order passed for A.Y. 10-11. The appellant had appealed against the findings of the AO before the CIT(A). The undersigned vide order No:PN/CIT(A)-V/ITO Wd.9(3)/206/2013-14 Dtd.7/11/2016 had disposed the appeal for A.Y. 10-11 holding that the activity of the appellant cannot be treated to be in the nature of adventure of trade. The relevant findings in that order are as follows: …….. 5.1. In view of the clear finding made in the A.Y. 10-11, the sale of land and building by the appellant cannot be treated to be business activities and thereby not chargeable to tax under the head ‘business income’. The income as offered by the appellant under the head ‘capital gains’ is upheld. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is deleted.”
Considering the above settled legal position on this issue, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable on this issue and it does not call for any interference. Rule of principle of consistency apply in this case. Revenue did not demonstrate that the relevant facts are different in this year. We also here mentioned that the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-11 is accepted by the
3 ITA No.927/PUN/2017
Revenue for similar legal proposition. Thus, the relevant grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 01st day of August, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (िवकास अव�थी /VIKAS AWASTHY) (डी. क�णाकरा राव/D. KARUNAKARA RAO) �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 01st August, 2019. Sujeet आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-6, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-5, Pune. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.